In re Application of Winn
| Citation | 28 Idaho 461,154 P. 497 |
| Parties | In re Application of ED. F. WINN, for Writ of Habeas Corpus |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1916 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
CRIMINAL LAW-INDICTMENTS-INFORMATIONS.
1. Informations are of equal dignity with indictments, subject only to the limitations contained in sec. 8, art. 1 of the constitution, to the effect that a defendant may be only accused by information after commitment by a magistrate and that "after a charge has been ignored by a grand jury no person shall be held to answer, or for trial therefor upon information of the public prosecutor."
2. When a defendant in a criminal case has been given, or has waived his preliminary examination and has been, by the magistrate held to answer and for trial in the district court and when the prosecuting attorney, at the next session thereof, no grand jury having been called or convened, has presented, and the clerk has filed an information charging him with the offense for which he has been so held to answer, the court acquires jurisdiction of the defendant and of the offense with which he is charged, from which it cannot be deprived by any action of a grand jury convened at a subsequent term.
[As to quashing indictment and finding new one, see note in 85 Am.St. 192]
APPLICATION for writ of habeas corpus. Writ quashed.
Motion to quash the writ of habeas corpus sustained and the petitioner remanded to the custody.
Edgington & Averitt, for Plaintiff.
Under our constitution and statutes a defendant who has been held to answer by a committing magistrate cannot be tried upon the information of the public prosecutor when the trial court, or the judge thereof, has determined that conditions existing necessitate the convening of a grand jury and does convene such grand jury between the time the defendant was held to answer and the time of his trial in the district court, provided the defendant had not, prior to the issuing of the order convening the grand jury, plead to the information, and provided further, that after being arraigned and before plea, suggested to the trial court by proper motion that it was without jurisdiction to proceed further with said cause at said time.
Our statute provides:
"The grand jury must inquire into all public offenses committed or triable within the county, and present them to the court, either by presentment or indictment." (Rev. Codes, 7630.)
"The grand jury have power to inquire, and it is their duty to inquire into all public offenses committed or triable within the county, which are not barred by limitations." (Ex parte Sternes, 82 Cal. 245, 23 P. 38.)
J. H. Peterson, Atty. Genl., D. A. Dunning and Herbert Wing, Assts., for Defendant.
The trial court acquires jurisdiction when the information is filed. (12 Cyc. 221.)
When the trial court acquired jurisdiction it was not ousted of such jurisdiction by the subsequent meeting of the grand jury, and the prosecutor had the right to proceed on the information already filed, regardless of whether or not the grand jury returned an indictment. (Elder v. State, 96 Ind. 162.)
The county attorney does not usurp the functions of the grand jury by proceeding under an information, as urged by counsel, but merely adopts one of two methods of procedure established by our constitution and statutes, each of equal dignity with the other, and each exclusive of the other in its operation and application. (Secs. 7655, 7656, 7657-7662, Rev. Codes.)
The record in this case discloses that on the 24th day of June, 1915, a complaint was filed with the probate judge of Bonneville county, in his capacity as committing magistrate, charging that the petitioner, Ed. F. Winn, did, on August 25, 1914, in that county, commit a public offense, to wit, a nuisance, which consisted in maintaining and assisting in maintaining and controlling a certain place within a prohibition district where intoxicating liquors were sold and otherwise disposed of in violation of law, and where persons were permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquors as a beverage and where intoxicating liquors were kept for sale and disposal in violation of law. Petitioner was arrested, brought before the magistrate and waived preliminary examination, and was held to answer said charge in the district court.
On the 8th day of July, 1915, the prosecuting attorney in and for Bonneville county presented in the district court, which was then in session, and the clerk under direction of the court filed an information charging petitioner with having committed the offense above mentioned. At a subsequent term...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Edmonson
...by information, he was arbitrarily and systematically excluded from the right to a preliminary hearing. [113 Idaho 234] re Winn, 28 Idaho 461, 154 P. 497 (1916). Art. 1, § 2 guarantees equal rights, privileges and immunities to all persons within the state. Fisher v. Masters, 59 Idaho 366, ......
-
State v. Owens
...as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended." I.C. § 19-1409(2); I.C. §§ 19-1411 and -1418; In re Winn, 28 Idaho 461, 154 P. 497 (1916). subsequent to the preliminary hearing and the magistrate's decision to bind the defendant over for trial should have been dismi......
-
State v. Wilson
...Ex parte Hayter, 16 Cal.App. 211, 116 P. 370.) There is no doubt about the offer of proof raising a jurisdictional question. (In re Winn, 28 Idaho 461, 154 P. 497; State v. Crook, 16 Utah 212, 51 P. 1091.) "In a criminal case the party does not waive his rights by not insisting upon them, a......
-
Warren v. Craven, 38657.
...and that an information cannot be issued if the charge has been previously brought before and ignored by a grand jury. Ex Parte Winn, 28 Idaho 461, 462, 154 P. 497, 498 (1916); see also State v. Edmonson, 113 Idaho 230, 233, 743 P.2d 459, 462–63 (1987). If, instead of proceeding by informat......